I feel opening do matter. That is what we face first. Wouldnt it be correct to say that what matters about openings is why are the moves made in the order they are made. I agree tactics should studied.
Openings
Sort:
Ferric wrote:
I feel opening do matter. That is what we face first. Wouldnt it be correct to say that what matters about openings is why are the moves made in the order they are made. I agree tactics should studied.
yes openings also bring tacyics with them.
any comments?
"Nxb4, then you put "what else?" as if the bishop pair doesn't even matter... hahaha. 
"
Now you are right. In that opening it is very easy for white to open up the game. (fxe5 followed by d4 at some point)
It is hard to play the vienna gambit without opening knowledge. You cannot play a tactical, sharp opening without knowledge. But otherwise it is easy to make good moves without knowledge. Chess openings are based on strategy. If you know strategy, you know the right moves. At about 1600-1700 level, you need to have a little bit theory in mind. Because you should get middlegame positions you are familiar with, you are experienced with. The problem with opening study is that lots of players learn theory first, instead of learning tactics and strategy.
All players of all levels should learn openings...and their approach should be suitable to their level. So for a beginner, learning a few classic openings about 5-10 moves deep is very useful and important.
To the wags who like to scare beginners away from opening theory and say "just play good opening moves," well, why not say "just play winning opening moves?" Or better yet, tell them to "just mate your opponent, don't worry about the opening." It's worthless advice, and these same wags have rafts of opening books in their libraries.
Studying tactics puzzles, which seems to be the de facto mantra for advising beginners, is a mixed bag. Most of the tactics in the tactics books exist in positions that these beginners will never see. Far better to teach them openings, and the tactics/blunders that can result from those.
>At about 1600-1700 level, you need to have a little bit theory in mind. <
Way too late. Start learning theory immediately. Doesn't have to be profound, but waiting until you're a Class B player is simply silly. When you DO get to Class B, then study harder openings.
As a Class C player, I can't tell you how many times I've played sub-1300 players who stare at my Scotch (a simple one to learn) and don't know what to do after 2.d4. "Playing good opening moves" like Nc6 usually allows me to nuke their right to castle. Oh, guess that wasn't a "good opening move." But it was every other time, hmm.
I know my limits...I stay away from the Ruy and the Indians because that theory is a little much for my level. But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit down at a board and just "play good opening moves" without my own opening repertoire.
The Scotch isn't 2.d4 though.
Sorry, 3 d4. \
I played it twice last weekend and was met with
3 ... f6 and
3 ... d6
The first is a bad move, but the second seems perfectly playable to a beginner unschooled in the tactics that come from certain openings.
White is threatening 1.Bxf7+ Ke6 2.Nd6+ and the Black K cannot go back to g8 because of mate at f8 with Rf8+ mate. There could follow 2...Ke6 3.Qg4+ Kxd6 4.Rad1+ Kc6 5.Qe4+ Kb6 6.Be3+ Ka6 7.Qa4+ mate however
Black could block witht the Q after 6.Be3+ with Qc5 and Black drops the
Q.
Wow. Moving the same piece twice in the opening puts White, who is already one tempo behind due to not developing a piece on move 3 while Black did, up a tempo? Care to explain?
You seriously are this clueless about openings? God, your ignorance compared to your rating is proof enough that openings don't make much difference. "moving the same piece twice", you must be kidding me.
It's well known that a knight on the fourth or fifth ranks is worth two tempo, unless it can be easily removed. It's not "moving it twice" if it's moving it to a position of higher tempo derp. When people say moving a piece twice it's typically when you're moving a knight sideways or a piece like a bishop again, like you are now forced to do or you'll lose your bishop pair.
I think Black has at least full equality after 4...d6 5.Nxb4 (what else? 5.c3 Ba5 and the Bishop will reroute to b6 after the Knight has been exchanged) 5...Nxb4 6.d3 Qh4+ 7.g3 Qe7 is a sample line where I would prefer to play Black.
Nxb4, then you put "what else?" as if the bishop pair doesn't even matter... hahaha. Try playing something other than blitz and you might be brought sharply down to earth when you have to actually get a clue.
You would prefer to play black, and yet it's the exact same position black could have gotten from the start except that now he has lost the bishop pair and now no dark-squared bishop to take advantage white's opened kingside. Give me a break.
I got to 2000+ OTB without any serious opening study, and at the very least I would play Black against you in that position in a standard game and feel pretty good about my chances. I'm not a big fan of f-pawn moves in double king-pawn openings, and the Knight from d5 does not influence the center as much as it did from c3, and certainly doesn't from off the board. I don't see the position becoming open enough for the bishop pair to compensate for long-term weaknesses on White's kingside that Knights, in particular, seem well-equipped to take advantage of.
All in all it's probably just equal.